Additional Fire Survey Respondent Comments

Here are the top concerns and comments that were written in by respondents to the December 2011 Campus Safety magazine and Center for Campus Fire Safety fire survey.

Other Top Concerns

• Contractors
• Convincing shareholders to take all alarms as real
• At times evacuations are too slow
• Rising costs of maintenance and compliance (inspections)
• Finding knowledgeable staff within the vendor’s ranks to maintain the system
• Apathy of staff
• Having system providers (vendors) who understand NFPA 72 well enough to properly spec and install a system
• Construction projects
• Education- Students’ improper usage of kitchens and microwaves
• Some structural members are not encased with fire resistive coverings, although building function and design greatly limit fire loading
• New code requires extensive upgrade whenever renovations are done
• Non-owned housing systems
• Span of control segmented
• Fire safety training programs
• A number of older systems for which parts are becoming scarce
• Size and design of institution
• Performing mandated drills
• Upgradable/updatable software
• Due to competitive bidding we must have 3 different panels listed and this leads to problems with stocking parts to repair
• Limited time to make the installation
• Volunteer Fire Service response coverage is limited under county plan
• Trouble with support from manufacturer
• Testing in occupied buildings
• Compatibility with phone system
• Who is responsible for fire safety? Where should it live?
• State regulations constantly changing

Other Comments

• Several older buildings need fire suppression
• Admin opposed to live testing of system stating it’s too disruptive to clients
• Training for administrators is needed
• Our local fire chief regularly reviews our system and we have monthly fire drills
• We have spent the last three years upgrading our oldest systems with new systems. We have a few campuses/buildings left to complete.
• We installed a new system during an expansion project and then upgraded our old system to the same level. The system is great but the technology is more advanced than the technicians are, which has caused for some frustrating moments.
• Majority of the schools are in compliance with fire marshal codes
• We made significant improvements in 2011 resulting in the need for less money in 2012
• There is no substitute for constant surveillance and inspection for ‘contraband’- Banned items such as warmers, hotplates, toaster ovens, candles, etc.
• We may be upgrading to a fire program at some point
• I still believe the biggest concern for us on our campus is educating faculty and staff, particularly lab staff on fire and lab safety. Having the right programs and the best delivery method, and the appropriate leadership support to make it mandatory with consequences for non-compliance.
• We have a good system. It is well maintained and funded. The facility is very well maintained and basically fire resistive construction.
• We currently are upgrading our fire systems to integrate Mass notification throughout the campus community
• We are continuously evaluating the state of our fire safety program. We are doing fine in respect with policies and procedures but not much improvement in educating students and staffs in fire safety
• We have programs we start each new year  that helps with cooking, false alarms, and general fire safety. We have installed the Safe-T-Element on our cooking stoves. We have completed our dorms with sprinklers.

If you appreciated this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!

Related Content

Stop Shootings Before They Start: Proactively Detect Threats with Visual AI

Pro-Palestine Protestors Occupy Cal Poly Humboldt Building

Student Mental Health Challenges Test the Mission of K-12 Schools

New Jersey Man Arrested for Vandalizing Rutgers Islamic Center During Eid al-Fitr